Worried
that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime
in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor
Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon."
According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators
to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually,
the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy
guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will
be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate
erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued
ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun
laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws
actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed
that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far
enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow
Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that
imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of
all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms
offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something.
The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly
doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to
rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent
crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%.
Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but
as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost
back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime
Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate
in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey
for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further
as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining
6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have
so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer
than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always
arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

As understandable as the
desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned
most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how
the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

• Banning guns that
fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are
converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets
and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather
than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense
to simply build a new gun.

• Making it very
difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18
from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns
make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime,
that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes
committed with shotguns.

Britain is not alone in
its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent
crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur
gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six
years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year
before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed
increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as
Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was
greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven
of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding
adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check
and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around
three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these
states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that
have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the
1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent
crimes.

Many things affect crime;
the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the
story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates.
Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult
to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call
up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end
up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle
drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.

Everyone wants to take guns
away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey
the law and the criminals don't, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot
defend themselves. This is especially true for those who are physically
weaker, women and the elderly.

Mr. Lott, a resident scholar
at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "More Guns,
Less Crime" (University of Chicago Presss, 2000) and "The Bias
Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).